Israel and the Doctrine of Proportionality

Jonah,
A common statement of the Israel Hawks is that Israel's existence is fragile, like you said earlier today. However, they have air superiority, the best weapons, the most disciplined troops and the bomb. Yet, you make it sound like they'll collapse the second they don't respond in an overheated way. They beat 3 bigger Arab countries once and they still have a significant military and economic advantage over everyone else. So why the lie about their fragile existence?

Me: First, I really can't stand the way people assume that if someone has a different perspective they must be lying. This is particularly common on the left these days. Why not just say I'm "wrong," or "misguided," etc?

Anyway, I can't speak for other people but here's how I've always thought about the question. Whenever it's necessary to use force to stay alive your position is precarious. And if you have to use it constantly just to live, that's a sign your "existence" is under serious threat (the humans in the "Living Dead" movies are always well-armed, none of them feel their existence isn't fragile).

In other words, the point is that Israel must maintain a very high level of military preparedness and vigilance merely in order to survive. If they didn't have that capability they'd be gone in a week. If they let down their guard for a moment, we've seen what happens. That's a pretty thin line if you ask me. Most countries don't have the ability to fight off all of their neighbors simultaneously but that's because they don't feel the need. According to the Israel-is-strong view, Belgium's existence is more fragile than Israel's because Israel is better armed. Who in the world thinks that's the case? I can assure you that most Israelis would rather have the "fragility" of Belgium's plight than the "stability" of theirs.

The Council on Foreign Relations has a tidy little primer up on the subject of the Doctrine of Proportionality.

Introduction

Israel's offensive into Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, in response to the abductions of two of its soldiers by Hezbollah and one by Hamas militants, raises a number of difficult legal questions. Among them: Did the Israeli response violate the principle of proportionality? UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has accused Israel of "disproportionate use of force" in its air strikes aimed at infrastructure including bridges and power stations, attacks which cut off clean water and electricity to Palestinian civilians. Legal scholars say armed reprisals against civilians are against the 1949 Geneva Conventions and not permissible under international humanitarian law. But Israel says its countermeasures are within its right of self-preservation, given the nature of its national security threats, and claims it is morally and legally bound to protect its nationals abroad. Israel's prime minister called Hezbollah's latest attack and seizure of two of its soldiers "an act of war," which raises even further legal questions about the nature of the current conflict.

What is the doctrine of proportionality?
The doctrine originated with the 1907 Hague Conventions, which govern the laws of war, and was later codified in Article 49 of the International Law Commission's 1980 Draft Articles on State Responsibility (PDF). The doctrine is also referred to indirectly in the 1977 Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions. Regardless of whether states are party to the treaties above, experts say the principle is part of what is known as customary international law. According to the doctrine, a state is legally allowed to unilaterally defend itself and right a wrong provided the response is proportional to the injury suffered. The response must also be immediate and necessary, refrain from targeting civilians, and require only enough force to reinstate the status quo ante. That said, experts say the proportionality principle is open to interpretation and depends on the context. "It's always a subjective test," says Michael Newton, associate clinical professor of law at Vanderbilt University Law School. "But if someone punches you in the nose, you don't burn their house down."

"Grab it before the Pentagon orders it burned..." -Vanity Fair
"...nonpartisan patriotism is the common thread tying together these reflections, love letters and stories of combat. They make for riveting reading." - The Washington Post
Winner of the 2006 Gold Medal for Anthologies - Military Writer's Society of America
"This collection is an excellent introduction to an emerging form of war reporting." - Booklist

Rude trash thrown out unread! (Yes, we're psychic) And all email sent us is presumed for publication unless you note otherwise. Not to worry, we hardly ever do that, except in the case of ranting trolls, and even then we'll give you warning.

USMC Combat Art Click the drawing to see more!

Stories From the Front

Welcome to Castle Argghhh!

This site is in no way affiliated with the Department of
Defense, Department of the Army, the Department of the
Air Force, or the National Guard Bureau and nothing said herein should be considered to have any official sanction by those (or any other)
agencies. We're just retired warriors, fellas, and
all opinions expressed herein are mine or Dusty's or Bill's (and the odd guest-poster like Cassandra and the Wicca Pundit)
unless quoted from other sources. This site does *not* have
the Rumsfeld Seal of Approval and we doubt he knows (or
cares) it exists! Though we *have* seen the Official Army Blog Training Brief, and we know that the *Counter-Intel* people know it exists... [Waving vigorously] "Hi fellas! How are ya?"

Unsolicited advertising. If you place, or cause an
agent to place, any unsolicited ads via any means, not
limited to so-called 'comment spam' or
'trackback spam' you are assumed to agree to
pay at the rate of $500USD per unsolicited URL. Contact
the site owner for remittance instructions. Attempts
will be made to collect this tariff, and a failure to
make payment will result in formal actions against the
advertising site.

Notable Quotes

"It's not difficult to understand why
somebody might pick up an AK-47 against us. Maybe we killed
his father in the first Gulf War, maybe in this Gulf War,
maybe he's just a dick.
~Sgt. Reginald Abram
Third Armored Cavalry Regiment in western Iraq.

Quoted in the Asia Times, Oct. 24"

President Bush on terrorists in Iraq:

"They can't whip our militaries. What they can
do is get on your TV screens and stand in front of your
TV cameras and cut somebody's head off, in order to
try to cause us to cringe and retreat. That's their
strongest weapon." . . .

Carrie Sez:

" Perhaps we should have another category of conservatives besides paleocons and neocons.
"Narcissocons" with the motto "We are always on our minds". If you happen to be one, you are not allowed to have or spend the older quarters because there's a MEXICAN EAGLE on the back. Oh the horror." . . .

Princess Crabby on Iraq:

" Maggie said:
"If you believed an incident such as this could change your mind then
you really weren't supporting OIF/OEF for the right reasons." " . . .

Red Ensign Bloggers - Fighting to Keep Canada Free from
the Yoke of Excessive Political Correctness!